Welcome to Stargazers Lounge
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Stargazers Lounge - Cookies

Like most sites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a personalized service, we remember and store information about how you use it. This is done using a simple text file called cookies which sit on your device. these cookies are completely safe and secure and will never contain any sensitive information. They are only used by stargazerslounge.com.

BlueAstra

Posted 14 February 2011 - 11:19 AM

BlueAstra

Sub Dwarf

Advanced Members

1,661 posts

Location:Manchester-UK

I must admit I am one of those people who throws lights, flats, darks and bias into DSS, and after selecting preferred options, lets it get on with it. I can see now that this may not be the right thing to do, and illustrates my lack of understanding of this process and some of the terms used. I think it would be really useful, and benefit a lot of users, if someone could compile a simple summary step by step process list specifically for DSS users based on the discussion here. Maybe it could become a sticky for 'preferred' DSS processing.

RogerTheDodger

Posted 14 February 2011 - 11:22 AM

martin_h

Posted 14 February 2011 - 11:44 AM

martin_h

White Dwarf

Advanced Members

3,345 posts

Location:Grimsby-UK

So does this mean, that the way I'm using DSS is producing results that are not properly corrected ?

I load an image... (whatever I have handy, although normally a light), all my flats and the master bias (from previously, although if I wanted to create a new master bias, I'd do all the bias too). Stack it, creating a bias corrected master flat. Clear the list, load my lights, darks and master flat, and let DSS do it's thing on all the frames.

If I was combining multiple nights data, I'd create that nights master flat in the same way, but then load up my saved file list, and add the new nights data to a new group.

narrowbandpaul

Posted 14 February 2011 - 12:21 PM

I admit that I too use DSS. I liked the fact that you just threw images at it and it did the business. I assumed that the guy who wrote knew what he was doing. Clearly not.

So I think I will ditch DSS, as the number of subtractions that are performed is more than is neccessary which will add noise. What a stupid method. I will inform my friend in the states who really knows what he's talking about when it comes to CCD imaging. Im sure he will have a few words to say about this....

I have a 90 trial of maxim, so if that works nicely, which im sure it will, then a purchase of a real programme like maxim will be required.

RobH

Posted 14 February 2011 - 12:55 PM

RobH

Global Moderator

Global Mods

7,065 posts

Location:South West England

I'd be very interested to see what he has to say Paul.
It would be nice to be able to summarise this properly and then contact the DSS designers.
Unless they are particularly precious, it may well halp them improve the program, which is great in the faxct that it clearly is useful for many people who can't or don't want to, invest a lot of money in Maxim or the like.

dph1nm

Posted 14 February 2011 - 02:21 PM

dph1nm

Sub Dwarf

Advanced Members

1,590 posts

Location:Durham

If I have one bias, one dark and one light, and I subtract the bias from the dark, then subtract the resulting bias-subtracted dark and the bias from the light, this is the same mathematical procedure as subtracting the original dark from the light. No extra noise is added. I can make the same argument for N x bias and N x dark. So where is DSS going wrong?

Dangerous-Dave

Posted 14 February 2011 - 02:27 PM

Dangerous-Dave

Sub Dwarf

Advanced Members

1,338 posts

Location:County Durham

Fascinating thread.

I wish getting the calibration slightly wrong was the limit of my problems with it. I seem to constantly get a very soft image that looks like it's been run through a median filter but damned if I can find out where it's happening. Simple answer - use Maxim!

RobH

Posted 14 February 2011 - 03:29 PM

RobH

Global Moderator

Global Mods

7,065 posts

Location:South West England

OK....Two things now need to happen.

Firstly, any untoward bashing of DSS needs to stop.
For the record, I think that the guys who write DSS are to be applauded.
They have come up with a program that many use very successfully, at no financial benefit to themselves, and it must be a heck of a job writing a program like that.

Secondly, for the authors of DSS to be brought in on the discussion as we are now going round in circles, and they may well be able to provide answers that will finally clear up any confusion.
Without knowing how the DSS algorithms work, we are shooting in the dark.

RobH

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:16 PM

Shibby

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:18 PM

Shibby

Brown Dwarf

Advanced Members

2,790 posts

Location:aka Lewis, East Anglia

Well said. I like DSS very much, but then I am... Biased... (pause for effect). It's made at least one step of the difficult process of learning deep sky imaging much easier, and I see no reason why not to continue using it.

Thankyou all for this thread, I'm learning much! The way I understand it then... (or at least the way I will use it from now on)

dph1nm

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:27 PM

that would be utterly pointless if DSS did that. It makes absolutely no sense to do so, and would increase the random noise contained within the subtracted frame......

Well I agree it is somewhat pointless, and a waste of processing power, but as far as I can see mathematically

Light - dark

is identical to

Light - (dark-bias) - bias

and does not add noise. I have always assumed this is what DSS does. My only concern might be if you use some fancy median combine for your master dark/bias frames, but even then I expect the added noise is trivial.

I really like DSS and would not be able to combine frames without it as I can't afford fancy software. If this simple 1,2,3 list is the way to get the best from it, it should help plenty of DSS users. What a smashing thread:hello2:

RobH

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:16 AM

I've been in contact with Luc, who wrote DSS, and he has kindly explained how DSS approaches the suubject of calibration.

Here are my questions, and any relevant replies.......It seems to me that the importanty question here is whether using multiple bias adds noise ior not.NBP says it does, Luc says not.I don't know....I'm a snapper, not a scientist!!!BTW.....Can we please try to keep any responses civilised pleased

Rob.

Hello.

You may know that there's a thread active on Stargazerslounge at the moment regarding calibration in DSS.I started the thread as there have, on occasion, been questions regarding calibration that have come up, and often DSS has seemed to go against the standard methods of calibration in the way it applies bias frames.

From what is being said, DSS subtracts bias from lights, darks and flat darks..

Bias doesn't need to be subtracted from darks, or flat darks, as the bias information is already in them, and will be removed once the light is dart subtracted, or the flat is flat dark subtracted.

If bias is removed from everything, it means that there is multiple bias subtraction going on, which adds noise.

The understanding of the experienced imagers on SGL, who use Maxim, or CCDSoft, is that calibration is thus....

Lights should be either dark subtracted, or bias subtracted, but not both.

Flats should be bias subtracted, or flat dark subtracted, but not both, before being applied to the lights.

If you don't mind, can you let me know how the DSS algorithms deal with the calibration process, and do they, in fact, multiple subtract bias?

I'd like to clear up the confusion on this matter, and put an end to what is now turning into speculation on the thread, and which badly needs input from yourselves.

Thanks for writing a program that is used by so many with great success. You have my greatest respect for doing this, especially for no financial gain.Now, let me explain how DSS is doing calibration and you will understand that all is good and soundly done.

Hello Rob.First, let say that you have the full set of calibration files (lights, darks, flats, bias, dark flats).

In this case, DSS is subtracting the bias from every other frames. (this is the first workflow diagram on the web site)

As a side note, as at least one contributor has noted, subtracting the bias frame is *adding* the noise of the bias frame to the light.

This is one important reason to create a master bias as noise free as possible by using a lot of bias frames (they are cheap to come by).

Of course, there is also a bias signal to be removed and it would be a shame not to get rid of it.

Now, if you don’t have the full set, you have two choices (and only two choices).

If you are using flats (and not using them will create vignetted images) you still need to remove the bias signal from the flat frames.

You can do it by using bias frames or dark flat frames. Either way is working since the dark flat frames also contain the bias signal.

The second workflow diagram is for when you are using only dark flats, and the third workflow diagram is for when you are using only bias.

Both are perfectly sound

BTW, using dark flats is only making sense when the dark signal in your flat frames is strong enough to justify its subtraction.

Some CCD camera have a significant dark signal (and even hot pixels) even with very short exposures and/or they need a minimum exposure time.

In both cases the use of dark flats is mandatory.

PS: DSS is using the only calibration methods there is, the same as recommended by Iris and I still you like to see another mathematically sound working method.

Clear skies,

Luc

Thanks Luc.I'd figured out that you are effectively neutralising the use of double bias.

However, as you say, you do add noise, the more calibration steps you use.

What your method does is exactly the same as calibrating your lights with just darks, and bias (or flat dark) subtracted flats, but with more stages, where a small amount of noise is added at each stage by using bias subtraction more than once. (If noise is added at each stage....I make no claims to be a theoretician).

You don't need to bias subtract your lights when using darks, as the bias signal is there in the dark, and is subtracted when the light is calibrated by the master dark.

The only other bias component that needs to be removed is that contained in the flat, so this needs bias subtraction.

Consequently, would it not be easier to simplify the process, and cut out the extra bias stages?

On the other hand, I understand that in a lot of ways, DSS has been designed to be simple to use, and if you just throw everything into the mix, and do it the way you describe,the results are, to all intents and purposes, the same.

I agree completely that with all calibration frames, you need to cut down any possibility of adding noise, which is why I personally have bias masters made of 50 or more subs, and I use not less than 30 each of darks and flats.

For the reason you state, I almost never use flat darks, as they are of such short exposures that bias does the job just as well.

Cheers

Rob.

Hi Rob,

In fact subtracting the same master bias from the darks and the light frames is not adding any noise compared to just subtracting the master dark (with its bias signal and noise) from the lights.

On a theoretical point of view, the noise is added at each stage only if you are using *different* master frames in the stages.

Thus removing the same bias signal/noise is only adding the noise once.

Moreover, since you can easily achieve a noise free master bias by using a lot of bias frames (100+), the end result is that using a good master bias is often better than just using a good master dark unless you are using a equally large number of dark frames to create it (and it does come cheap ).

However, like I said before, if you insist on not using bias subtraction from light and dark frames, you can just tell DSS to view your bias frames as dark flats and only the flat frames will be bias subtracted.

In this case, for all intent and purpose, the dark flats subtraction will be the same as a bias subtraction.